|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
RELIGIOUS HISTORY of foetuses to the womb of Dēvakī. When Kṛishṇa is born of Dēvakī, she herself shall be born of Yaśōdā, and thereafter Vāsudēva shall effect the exchange of infants. For the execution of this duty, Vishṇu promises that the people will address her, morning and afternoon, with reverence and praise, call her Āryā, Durgā, Dēvagarbhā, Ambikā, Bhadrā, Bhadrakālī, Kshēmyā and Kshēmaṅkarī, and propitiate her with offerings of wine and flesh. As the names Durgā and Ambikā show, she was really the consort of Śiva. She cannot therefore be, strictly speaking, described as Vaishṇavī Mahāmāyā. The same string of names we find repeated in the Agni-Purāṇa, XII. 12-13. Now, if we consider these names carefully, we find that they reduce themselves to three distinct appellations. That Durgā is a name by itself can scarcely be doubted. That Bhadrakālī and Kshēma[ṁ]karī are amplified or periphrastic forms of Bhadrā and Kshēm(y)ā can also be scarcely doubted. That Ārya and Ambikā are synonymous terms signifying ‘mother’ can also be scarcely doubted. Āryā and Ambikā, in fact, have survived into the vernacular forms Āyā (=Āī) and Ammā. The real names are thus three: (1) Durgā, (2) Bhadrā, and (3) Kshēmā, and they are mothers, that is, -Āryā or Ambikā. This reminds us of a passage from the Vājasanēyi-saṁhitā, (III. 58) which says: Ēsha tē Rudra bhāgaḥ saha svasrā Ambikayā tañ juhasva svāhā . . . . Ava Rudram=adīmahy=ava dēvam Tryambakam, “This is thy portion, Rudra; graciously accept it together with thy sister Ambikā! Svāhā ! . . . . . . We have satisfied Rudra; we have satisfied the god Tryambaka.”1 Here Ambikā is described as a sister of Rudra and Rudra is in the same breath called Trymbaka. This clearly shows that originally there were three Ambikās or Mothers associated with Rudra. They were Mothers of the world but only Sisters to Rudra. In later times, as mythology shuffled and re-shuffled itself, Āryā or Ambā became the name of Siva’s wife, ,and Mothers multiplied themselves into seven or eight. We have already hinted that just as Bhadrakālī was an amplified form of Bhadrā, so was Kshēmakarī of Kshēmā. If any doubt remains on this point, it is removed by verse 2 of the Vasantgaḍh inscription of Varmalāta, dated Vikrama year 682=625 A.D. The second line of this verse runs thus: Kshēmāryā Kshēmakarī vidadhātu śivam nas=satatam.2 Here Kshēmā and Kshēmakarī are mentioned together, and Kshēmā has been called Kshēmāryā like Bhadrāryā of the Bihar pillar inscription. Nay, the stanza preceding it is equally important. There Durgā is praised, and is called Yōganidrā of Dhātṛi (Creator) and Viśvayōni, both of which are names of Brahman. Nevertheless, the same stanza tells us that she was the wife of Śiva. The inference is not unreasonable that Durgā, Bhadrā or Bhadrakālī and Kshēmā or Kshēmakarī were originally three different Mothers (Āryās) who later on became forms or names of one and the same goddess, namely, Durgā, and remained always connected with Śiva or Rudra.
Let us now proceed one step further and consider what is meant by the Bihar record saying that the Divine Mathers, of whom Bhadrāryā was certainly one, were led by Skanda. How
Skanda was born, how he was protected by the Mātṛis and how he conferred powers upon them
has been narrated in the Skandōpākhyāna of the Vanaparvan of the Mahābhārata.3 But in this
account the Mātṛis named are entirely different from those anywhere mentioned, such as
Kākī, Halimā, Mālinī, Bṛiṅhikā, Āryā, Palālā and Vaimitrā.4 Besides, here Skanda, Mahāsēna,
Viśākha and Kumāra have all been regarded as names of one god. This could not have happened in the Gupta period. For, as we have elsewhere pointed out,5 in the Kushāṇa regime,
one type of Huvishka’s coins bears on the reverse the three gods, Skanda, Kumāra and Viśa-
1 D. R. Bhandarkar’s Some Aspects of Indian Culture, (Sir William Meyer Lectures, 1938-39), pp. 42-43.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|